4 ms·
> Notice the trick? If you can keep score at something then you can probably make an algorithm for it You are basically arguing P = NP, but it isn't known to b
by alex_smart 4y ago
> Notice the trick? If you can keep score at something then you can probably make an algorithm for it
You are basically arguing P = NP, but it isn't known to be the case. As far as we can tell, keeping score is much easier in general than finding states that yield a high score.
- avgcorrection 4y agoI seriously doubt that “anything/[everything] we can score” has been conquered by AI,[1] but I was assuming that the author meant those typical AI milestones. [1] What about some kind of competition where you have to react and act based on visual stimulus? And you have to do it perfectly?
- motoxpro 4y agoLittle too broad. If the act is tell you what color it is, then computers will win every time. Again, if you can score it. A computer will win.
- avgcorrection 4y agoNice counter-example. Why would the test be that simple?
- pixl97 4y agoThen bring forth a complex but indivisible test?
- avgcorrection 4y agoCan’t be bothered.
- burnished 4y agoYeah, like sorting apples into good and bad piles really fast?
- avgcorrection 4y agoSounds like a leading question which is supposed to debunk that whole category by suggesting one counter-example. So no.
- burnished 4y agoOh, was the point to only pick examples that made your point seem stronger?
- avgcorrection 4y agoThe point was to allude to simple tasks for our sense-system which AI has issues with at present. Without getting lost in the weeds with y’all well-actuallying every little concrete example because you love to be contrarians. Given that we don’t (seem to) have widespread beta-ready autonumous cars yet, I’m guessin that this is still the case…
- burnished 4y agoI think you should try reinterpreting this, if there are a bunch of holes in your examples that are meant to be clear and defining, then maybe it isnt so open and closed? Its also a little strange to be called a contrarian in this instance (yes generally speaking true) because it does not seem to be contrarian to point out obvious counter examples. It feels like a way for you to easily dismiss any other opinion because you already binned it as some one denying reality in order to pointlessly argue.